1911Forum banner

Which grip safety?

800 Views 4 Replies 5 Participants Last post by  RickB
Which grip safety do you prefer and why? I've never had a problem with the standard (GI type) grip safety, but am looking at beavertails for a Commander I'm about to get. Is the hump at the bottom really necessary? I look the look of guns without it and since I have a fairly tight grip, do I really need it? How do Wilson, Brown, S&A and McCormick compare?
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

· Registered
652 Posts
The "hump at the bottom" really shines if you shoot with your thumb on top of the safety, or you attempt to fire with a hasty grip.
I too, have had little trouble with the standard gs. I usually give mine "the treatment" anyway. I tune them to come off sooner and, if needed, extend their arc to the rear. I don't recommend this, unless a person really understands what they are doing.
As far as b'tails go, I prefer the Caspian style. They have a ridge running top to bottom, instead of the usual pad. Depending on your hands, they can be a little rough with heavy recoiling guns.

· Super Moderator
EDC: SIG P938.
22,409 Posts
I like the original, M1911 grip safety, pinned in the depressed position, combined with a bobbed and thinned spur hammer.
I have guns with just about every combination of grip safety and hammer styles, and after much fiddling, decided I like the simplicity, looks, and feel of the original combo. I put a circa 1913, "short/sharp" hammer on my M1911, and it was a revelation; no hammer bite, nice high hold (interesting that one of the major benefits of the beavertail is supposedly the wide, smooth surface, but one of the latest things in beavertails is to narrow them?), looks great, feels great.
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.